After spending the night in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, NSA leaker Edward Snowden did not board the Aeroflot flight he had been expected to take to Havana. His plan was apparently to fly to the Cuban capital and then to go on to Ecuador (where he had requested asylum). Snowden's whereabouts remain unknown.

It may be that Snowden and his friends from WikiLeaks—who helped him secure a “special refugee travel document” last week from Ecuadorian authorities and assisted with his trip from Hong Kong to Moscow—have an alternate travel route in mind. There is also the possibility that he is being detained by Russian authorities.

The State Department had revoked Snowden’s American passport on Friday, which is normal for persons with “felony arrest warrants.”

“Such a revocation does not affect citizenship status,” Jen Psaki, a State Department spokesperson told Ars. “Persons wanted on felony charges, such as Mr. Snowden, should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than is necessary to return him to the United States. Because of the Privacy Act, we cannot comment on Mr. Snowden's passport specifically."

The Washington Post pointed out that Aeroflot’s regularly scheduled flight would have taken the commercial jet over Norwegian, Canadian, and American airspace before landing in Havana: “But if the plane uses a different flight plan—north toward the Arctic and then south over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean—the Russian authorities will have directly participated in Snowden’s escape."

US Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking to reporters in India where he is on a state visit, said it would be “deeply troubling” if China or Russia had adequate notice of Snowden’s plans before his departure.

"I suppose there is no small irony here,” Kerry added. “I mean, I wonder if Mr. Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of Internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of Internet freedom since that seems to be what he champions."

It's really fucking sad when the majority of a nation is cheering for an accused traitor on the run from their own government.

Maybe because we believe that whistle-blowing and civil disobedience in the face of massive governmental wrong-doing is of greater importance that trumped up charges?

Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Ironically, Snowden's best move might be to turn himself in for a public trial! If he could get a fair public trial.

Just drag all this USA-is-spying-on-us-citizen stuff out publicly on CNN 24/7 like happened with Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias, George Zimmerman, 'Whitey' Bulger, etc.

That would be great if it happened, but they would just claim national security requires secrecy, close the trial to the public, and not release any court records. Then put him in solitary confinement so he couldn't leak any information to anyone else.

I'm not going to invoke torture because that doesn't seem like a given (although at this point there would at least be some intense questioning about contacts with the Chinese and Russians), but the above really seems unavoidable. I suspect he considered the option and decided it would be counterproductive.

Snowden seeking refuge wherever he can find it, even if the nation in question violates some of his core values, hardly negates the moral repugnance of what the United States has done.

I'm really sick of media and government throwing out the hypocrisy defense. It's like saying if Daniel Ellsberg had been a pedophile then it would have invalidated his leak of the Pentagon Papers, which is ridiculous. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who points it out.

The government actually broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist and went thru his records to find embarrasing dirt on Ellsberg.

In Britain, rather than doing a proper investigation, Scotland Yard duspatched three undercover officers to dig up embarrassing info on a young man, who was stabbed to death in some kind of demonstration, and his parents. (Happened about 20 years ago, came out when one of the undercover officers recently wrote a memoir, was in British press yesterday )

If "they" believed he was on the plane, it would likely be intercepted by fighters and directed to land somewhere with a long enough runway to handle the aircraft. If you believe Ecuador can grant asylum based on its sovereignty, you must believe the US has the right to patrol its own airspace.

All of that said, it's unlikely he'd pre-announce his route via commercial flight.

Revoking the right of Russian commercial carriers to overfly US teritory would no doubt lead to a quick quid pro quo and affect many asian destinations by US carriers.

It's not revoking anyone's privilege of overflight to intercept a specific aircraft suspected of carrying a fugitive, so long as the aircraft is allowed to refuel and continue on its way in a reasonable timeframe.

Though the specifics vary by mode, it's conceptually the same if someone was traveling by aircraft, boat, train or bus through a country. Common carriers are not liable for transporting fugitives so long as they allow for "reasonable" inspections.

And if they don't land? It's not like the USAF is gonna splash them for not complying.

If "they" believed he was on the plane, it would likely be intercepted by fighters and directed to land somewhere with a long enough runway to handle the aircraft. If you believe Ecuador can grant asylum based on its sovereignty, you must believe the US has the right to patrol its own airspace.

All of that said, it's unlikely he'd pre-announce his route via commercial flight.

Revoking the right of Russian commercial carriers to overfly US teritory would no doubt lead to a quick quid pro quo and affect many asian destinations by US carriers.

It's not revoking anyone's privilege of overflight to intercept a specific aircraft suspected of carrying a fugitive, so long as the aircraft is allowed to refuel and continue on its way in a reasonable timeframe.

Though the specifics vary by mode, it's conceptually the same if someone was traveling by aircraft, boat, train or bus through a country. Common carriers are not liable for transporting fugitives so long as they allow for "reasonable" inspections.

And if they don't land? It's not like the USAF is gonna splash them for not complying.

You be the pilot of an unarmed jumbojet full of people and test that theory. And watch that the copilot-who-doesn't-want-to-die doesn't do something clever like dump all the fuel.

For the record, this isn't a movie!!!! Again, this is not a movie. Don't expect Snowden to represent himself in the court, against the president of the US. LOL. Silly people, you won't do much good for the movement or for the cause when you are locked up in prison or dead!!!

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

The point is that Snowden did not have to leak classified material to accomplish his stated goals; there are channels in place for whistleblowing on classified projects. Plenty of people in Congress with an axe to grind against this Administration and/or the Patriot Act who could have revealed the presence of the project through hearings without hamstringing current operations. Of course, retain leverage in case such people turn out to be really frenemies of the surveillance state. Then you have an even bigger story to leak to the press.

Oh please, do you really think anyone in the Congress / Administration did NOT know about the NSA spying already? And they did nothing about it. Going public was the only way for Snowden to change things.

That is interesting. Can you provide the link where you learned that everyone in Congress knew the details of what was happening? I think it would be an interesting read to hear about how everyone knew the details of what was happening and chose to do nothing.

The President said that congress had all been briefed on it -- though some are denying that they were. He said, she said.

Multiple Congress Critters have gone on the record as to their being briefed, together with an NDA that disallowed discussion or mention with or to anyone not cleared for the information. In short, they were aware of it and unable to do anything with the information as their staffs are not cleared for the information ... you know, the people who do the research, advise their critter and pass information to other Congressional staff members for the purpose of informing confidential Congressional discussions.

The problem is that internet commenters are filled with immaturity and grandiose levels of self entitlement. Wanting something does not give you right to it. Nothing gives you the right break an agreement that you swore to.

Plenty of things give you the right to break an agreement you swore to.

/ must resist godwin....

Ok, let me rephrase. If you live in a country that has a legal process with trials and lawyers, and you break one of their laws, then running away to another country is indefensible.

When you are facing immediate execution for a heartfelt conviction then you have to fight, but at that point you have declared war (in a personal sense) and whatever happens to you is because of your choice. When you are an adult you are supposed take responsibility and be ready for the consequences. Just like when I deployed to Iraq 2006, If had died there then that would have been the result of a decision I made in 2001. I didn't try to dodge the law and leave the country, I stayed and I served my country and put my life on the line. People don't understand that when you swear an oath that is how serious it is. People live and die based on these decisions, you don't get to dismiss that responsibility.

There is a tank coming down the road ... your job -- stop it.So you step out in the middle of the road, hold your hand out and yell "STOP!"Splat .. the tank rolls on...

A stand up fight when you are outclassed as a fighter is about the dumbest possible move if you intend to win. See Tienanmen Square video footage to see a protester who actually used this technique. Successfully even until a driver forgot to hit the brakes.

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

The point is that Snowden did not have to leak classified material to accomplish his stated goals; there are channels in place for whistleblowing on classified projects. Plenty of people in Congress with an axe to grind against this Administration and/or the Patriot Act who could have revealed the presence of the project through hearings without hamstringing current operations. Of course, retain leverage in case such people turn out to be really frenemies of the surveillance state. Then you have an even bigger story to leak to the press.

Oh please, do you really think anyone in the Congress / Administration did NOT know about the NSA spying already? And they did nothing about it. Going public was the only way for Snowden to change things.

That is interesting. Can you provide the link where you learned that everyone in Congress knew the details of what was happening? I think it would be an interesting read to hear about how everyone knew the details of what was happening and chose to do nothing.

The President said that congress had all been briefed on it -- though some are denying that they were. He said, she said.

Multiple Congress Critters have gone on the record as to their being briefed, together with an NDA that disallowed discussion or mention with or to anyone not cleared for the information. In short, they were aware of it and unable to do anything with the information as their staffs are not cleared for the information ... you know, the people who do the research, advise their critter and pass information to other Congressional staff members for the purpose of informing confidential Congressional discussions.

Well, it's not true they couldn't do anything about it. They could have come out in support of Senators Wyden and Udall back when those were the only ones raising objections. They could have supported amendments to the Patriot Act. They could have voted against renewing it. In short, they could have done their jobs as our senators and representatives.

I'm not going to say it would necessarily have changed things, but it might have, and certainly if enough of them had done so, it would have made a difference.

"I suppose there is no small irony here,” Kerry added. “I mean, I wonder if Mr. Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of Internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of Internet freedom since that seems to be what he champions."

Nice straw-man argument, Mr Kerry. Exposing the wrongdoings of the US government is not the same as championing Internet freedom. Don't change the f...ing subject.

Or maybe it was just a clever way of ducking the question. Especially while he's relatively out of touch, out of country (not a slur on India). He knows that the media (especially the US media) generally don't do nuance very well -- or even getting the essentials right -- look at his experience in the "Swiftboat" affair.

He managed to sound critical of Snowden, but also managed to avoid calling him a traitor -- and pointed out the bad behaviour of certain countries other than the USA... In the end, I don't think I actually learned anything about Kerry's own opinion on the Snowden/NSA expose from those remarks, but it took me a while to realise that.

"I suppose there is no small irony here,” Kerry added. “I mean, I wonder if Mr. Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of Internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of Internet freedom since that seems to be what he champions."

Nice straw-man argument, Mr Kerry. Exposing the wrongdoings of the US government is not the same as championing Internet freedom. Don't change the f...ing subject.

Or maybe it was just a clever way of ducking the question. Especially while he's relatively out of touch, out of country (not a slur on India). He knows that the media (especially the US media) generally don't do nuance very well -- or even getting the essentials right -- look at his experience in the "Swiftboat" affair.

He managed to sound critical of Snowden, but also managed to avoid calling him a traitor -- and pointed out the bad behaviour of certain countries other than the USA... In the end, I don't think I actually learned anything about Kerry's own opinion on the Snowden/NSA expose from those remarks, but it took me a while to realise that.

That may be so, but it's not important. I don't care if Mr Kerry was smart and ducked the question consciously, or was stupid and committed a logical fallacy unknowingly. In both cases, the discussionis moved in the wrong direction: from the PRISM program, towards who Snowden is and why he made certain choices.

We should really be reading articles on how the PRISM program came to be, who was involved, what steps the US government is taking to come clean, what guarantees will be put in place that the spying on innocent people will not continue.

I'm awful at remembering political history, but I seem to recall that many of the USA's early politicians/leaders felt that one of the highest forms of service we can perform for our country is to expose corruption within the government, especially when it's the sort that corrodes the principles the USA was founded on. That sabotages the corrupt individuals involved, but upholds any oaths regarding defending our nation; it doubtless violates some laws (possibly ones passed by the corrupt officials or their cronies) but Americans were never intended by the Founding Fathers to be obedient little sheep in the face of something as deeply fucked-up as Snowden encountered.

I have to admire someone trying to live up to those standards to the degree he did; I can only imagine what went through his head in trying to decide whether to follow through, given that he had to know it'd mean living like either Assange or Manning.

People hoping for his capture should consider this: actions like Snowden's -- citizens non-violently working from within the system to expose or disable corruption -- are the most realistic path our country has toward regaining freedom & justice within our lifetimes. We won't get there by swinging toward the extremes of either small acts of personal defiance *or* by clinging to the rules and rejecting the message of anyone that walks outside them.

The problem is that internet commenters are filled with immaturity and grandiose levels of self entitlement. Wanting something does not give you right to it. Nothing gives you the right break an agreement that you swore to.

Plenty of things give you the right to break an agreement you swore to.

/ must resist godwin....

Ok, let me rephrase. If you live in a country that has a legal process with trials and lawyers, and you break one of their laws, then running away to another country is indefensible.

Nope, still perfectly fine in certain circumstances. Blind obedience to authority/blindly following "the rules" is not the way to a better world.

It's not blind obedience it is due process of the law.

When you live in a nation of laws you have to follow them or you have anarchy. I don't care how much narcissistic self-entitlement you feel you are owed. If you break the law you have to go through the due process in a civilized society.

The problem is that internet commenters are filled with immaturity and grandiose levels of self entitlement. Wanting something does not give you right to it. Nothing gives you the right break an agreement that you swore to.

Plenty of things give you the right to break an agreement you swore to.

/ must resist godwin....

Ok, let me rephrase. If you live in a country that has a legal process with trials and lawyers, and you break one of their laws, then running away to another country is indefensible.

When you are facing immediate execution for a heartfelt conviction then you have to fight, but at that point you have declared war (in a personal sense) and whatever happens to you is because of your choice. When you are an adult you are supposed take responsibility and be ready for the consequences. Just like when I deployed to Iraq 2006, If had died there then that would have been the result of a decision I made in 2001. I didn't try to dodge the law and leave the country, I stayed and I served my country and put my life on the line. People don't understand that when you swear an oath that is how serious it is. People live and die based on these decisions, you don't get to dismiss that responsibility.

There is a tank coming down the road ... your job -- stop it.So you step out in the middle of the road, hold your hand out and yell "STOP!"Splat .. the tank rolls on...

A stand up fight when you are outclassed as a fighter is about the dumbest possible move if you intend to win. See Tienanmen Square video footage to see a protester who actually used this technique. Successfully even until a driver forgot to hit the brakes.

EDIT: you->your

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

The problem is that internet commenters are filled with immaturity and grandiose levels of self entitlement. Wanting something does not give you right to it. Nothing gives you the right break an agreement that you swore to.

Plenty of things give you the right to break an agreement you swore to.

/ must resist godwin....

The thing is, that based on his comments released today, he did not enter that agreement in good faith. He took that job, contracting to the NSA, with the sole intent to steal classified information. This is not the behavior of someone who should be afforded any leeway.

If he were a journalist, this would be called a "sting". And the NSA got caught.

America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

The problem is that internet commenters are filled with immaturity and grandiose levels of self entitlement. Wanting something does not give you right to it. Nothing gives you the right break an agreement that you swore to.

Plenty of things give you the right to break an agreement you swore to.

/ must resist godwin....

The thing is, that based on his comments released today, he did not enter that agreement in good faith. He took that job, contracting to the NSA, with the sole intent to steal classified information. This is not the behavior of someone who should be afforded any leeway.

If he were a journalist, this would be called a "sting". And the NSA got caught.

He is not a journalist and no that would not be a "sting," that would be violation of US law. It would be akin to joining the US Army only to run to the other side and tell them where our troops are. If he joined the NSA for the purpose of stealing secretes then we already have a name for that, a spy.

The problem is that internet commenters are filled with immaturity and grandiose levels of self entitlement. Wanting something does not give you right to it. Nothing gives you the right break an agreement that you swore to.

Plenty of things give you the right to break an agreement you swore to.

/ must resist godwin....

The thing is, that based on his comments released today, he did not enter that agreement in good faith. He took that job, contracting to the NSA, with the sole intent to steal classified information. This is not the behavior of someone who should be afforded any leeway.

Is the government going to try to turn Snowden into the next Osama Bin Laden? Spend tons of time and resources trying to take him down just to eventually tell us they raided his location, killed him, and dumped his body where nobody can corroborate the story?

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

When you live in a nation of laws you have to follow them or you have anarchy. I don't care how much narcissistic self-entitlement you feel you are owed. If you break the law you have to go through the due process in a civilized society.

Edward Snowden did not do that, and that is indefensible.

What about your own constitution? What about human rights? People like you made Third Reich happen. Do you think that it was not all legal?

It's really fucking sad when the majority of a nation is cheering for an accused traitor on the run from their own government.

Maybe because we believe that whistle-blowing and civil disobedience in the face of massive governmental wrong-doing is of greater importance that trumped up charges?

Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If you catch me violating that oath, I will violate you.

Maybe we should start questioning whether or not he really is a traitor?

I mean what did he really do? He released documents that were classified to hide them from US, FROM CITIZENS, not from the enemy.

The enemy assumes, just as we do [assume our enemies], that someone could be watching, listening.

He revealed a violation of that oath. He revealed a violation, circumvention (just because you put it on paper as a law doesn't make it right or technically legal - only when the court upholds the law when it's challenged is this really determined) of Constitutional rights.

If anything, we should thank him for having the balls. Whether or not what he did was punishable by law is for the court to decide.

But if we prosecute every person who's trying to stand up for the people's rights, and bow down every time the government shakes its finger at us, then we are not free.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

US Citizen's are given due process of law in the United States of America. Even if you assassinate the President of the US you are still given a fair public trail before a jury of your peers and a lawyer if you cannot afford to hire your own. This is guaranteed by the US constitution. The US is not the USSR or Nazi Germany.

Those comments by Mr. Kerry are ludicrous. At some point you have to realize that the enemies of your enemy are your friends (by default). Everyone has an agenda, you can't take on everybody just on principle. He already picked the fight of his life.

What's so ludicrous about pointing out that he is relying on far more oppressive nations than the United States to keep him from facing the consequences of his actions.

Why hasn't he released any of the NSA's data on Russian or Chinese computer espionage? His plan to open a dialogue seems to be mostly directed at harming the US and British governments, and while he has released hard data in the form of classified documents, his comments have been pretty consistently vague assertions that the NSA analysts can do whatever they want with no real oversight. Yet he still hasn't pointed out any actual examples of how they have abused the system and gotten away with it.

Most of the evils laid at the NSA's feet are based on gross assumptions that the NSA is broadly collecting data without good reason or authority. If it gets pointed out that they had to get a warrant to gain access to what data they did get it is assumed that it was just rubber stamped. Of course actually applying for and receiving the number of warrants that would be needed to do the kind of things being assumed would be logistically impossible even if they were little more than being rubber stamped.

"I suppose there is no small irony here,” Kerry added. “I mean, I wonder if Mr. Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of Internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of Internet freedom since that seems to be what he champions."

Nice straw-man argument, Mr Kerry. Exposing the wrongdoings of the US government is not the same as championing Internet freedom. Don't change the f...ing subject.

Or maybe it was just a clever way of ducking the question. Especially while he's relatively out of touch, out of country (not a slur on India). He knows that the media (especially the US media) generally don't do nuance very well -- or even getting the essentials right -- look at his experience in the "Swiftboat" affair.

He managed to sound critical of Snowden, but also managed to avoid calling him a traitor -- and pointed out the bad behaviour of certain countries other than the USA... In the end, I don't think I actually learned anything about Kerry's own opinion on the Snowden/NSA expose from those remarks, but it took me a while to realise that.

That may be so, but it's not important. I don't care if Mr Kerry was smart and ducked the question consciously, or was stupid and committed a logical fallacy unknowingly. In both cases, the discussionis moved in the wrong direction: from the PRISM program, towards who Snowden is and why he made certain choices.

We should really be reading articles on how the PRISM program came to be, who was involved, what steps the US government is taking to come clean, what guarantees will be put in place that the spying on innocent people will not continue.

I don't understand what you mean. They already have secret courts to look at secret documents and issue secret warrants to get secret data. Also, they said trust me. So, as you can see, there are plenty of safe guards in place to ensure you are not spied on and your data is safe if they do.

America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

Tell that to the people on Guantanamo Bay.

Don't forget Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son the latter of which was not suspected of anything but killed because his dad was bad.

When you live in a nation of laws you have to follow them or you have anarchy. I don't care how much narcissistic self-entitlement you feel you are owed. If you break the law you have to go through the due process in a civilized society.

Edward Snowden did not do that, and that is indefensible.

What about your own constitution? What about human rights? People like you made Third Reich happen. Do you think that it was not all legal?

Other things Snowden revealed: the existence and general whereabouts of NSA foreign spying programs.Other things that exist in the documents sent to media outlets: specific technical details concerning the methodology for implementing spying programs.This has what, exactly, to do with the protection of my rights?

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

US Citizen's are given due process of law in the United States of America. Even if you assassinate the President of the US you are still given a fair public trail before a jury of your peers and a lawyer if you cannot afford to hire your own. This is guaranteed by the US constitution. The US is not the USSR or Nazi Germany.

That's true, but you can be imprisoned up to the trial. It can take years before the trial occurs, and the trial and appeals themselves can take years. You can be put in solitary confinement (and that's likely here to prevent him from spreading classified information). The trial can occur in complete secrecy.

So while true, you can still be disappeared for years, and then convicted with all court proceedings kept secret.

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want to avoid that outcome. Especially if their goal is to get things discussed, disappearing into prison is not a useful result.

What Snowden did is certainly illegal, but given his starting premises, his actions make perfect sense. Indeed I think they are almost inevitable for anyone who discovers government misconduct. The outcome of previous leaks has really shown there are few other options.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

Perhaps you're the one missing the point? What Snowden's allegations essentially boil down to is that -- at least as far as the NSA and similar American agencies are concerned -- Due Process has already fallen by the wayside.

And you're just brushing aside any comments that point out why this is in fact a credible position.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

US Citizen's are given due process of law in the United States of America. Even if you assassinate the President of the US you are still given a fair public trail before a jury of your peers and a lawyer if you cannot afford to hire your own. This is guaranteed by the US constitution. The US is not the USSR or Nazi Germany.

That's true, but you can be imprisoned up to the trial. It can take years before the trial occurs, and the trial and appeals themselves can take years. You can be put in solitary confinement (and that's likely here to prevent him from spreading classified information). The trial can occur in complete secrecy.

So while true, you can still be disappeared for years, and then convicted with all court proceedings kept secret.

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want to avoid that outcome. Especially if their goal is to get things discussed, disappearing into prison is not a useful result.

What Snowden did is certainly illegal, but given his starting premises, his actions make perfect sense. Indeed I think they are almost inevitable for anyone who discovers government misconduct. The outcome of previous leaks has really shown there are few other options.

How can a "public" trial as dictated by the US constitution occur in secrecy? Which part of a "speedy trial" as dictated by the US constitution allows for an individual to be jailed for years prior to the trial? I don't think you understand how due process works.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

Perhaps you're the one missing the point? What Snowden's allegations essentially boil down to is that -- at least as far as the NSA and similar American agencies are concerned -- Due Process has already fallen by the wayside.

And you're just brushing aside any comments that point out why this is in fact a credible position.

Due process has not fallen by the wayside. The NSA is a military tool, it does not investigate crimes. Any information gathered by the NSA would be inadmissible in court and would thus have zero affect on due process which only pertains only to legal proceedings. Nothing the NSA collects can be used to put you in jail.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

US Citizen's are given due process of law in the United States of America. Even if you assassinate the President of the US you are still given a fair public trail before a jury of your peers and a lawyer if you cannot afford to hire your own. This is guaranteed by the US constitution. The US is not the USSR or Nazi Germany.

That's true, but you can be imprisoned up to the trial. It can take years before the trial occurs, and the trial and appeals themselves can take years. You can be put in solitary confinement (and that's likely here to prevent him from spreading classified information). The trial can occur in complete secrecy.

So while true, you can still be disappeared for years, and then convicted with all court proceedings kept secret.

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want to avoid that outcome. Especially if their goal is to get things discussed, disappearing into prison is not a useful result.

What Snowden did is certainly illegal, but given his starting premises, his actions make perfect sense. Indeed I think they are almost inevitable for anyone who discovers government misconduct. The outcome of previous leaks has really shown there are few other options.

How can a "public" trial as dictated by the US constitution occur in secrecy? Which part of a "speedy trial" as dictated by the US constitution allows for an individual to be jailed for years prior to the trial? I don't think you understand how due process works.

Are you asking whether these things are possible, or asking whether they should be constitutional? In the first case, I think you must not read the news very often, but:

With regard to secret trials, the very first thing I found in Google is this fairly comprehensive guide to how and why proceedings would be sealed, from the Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/looku ... _Guide.pdf (pdf document) National security is listed as a possible reason on page 6.

As for the right to a speedy trial, it's a pretty vague right. There is this Supreme Court precedent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo in which the case in question was delayed by 5 years, and the outcome was still upheld by the Supreme Court.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

US Citizen's are given due process of law in the United States of America. Even if you assassinate the President of the US you are still given a fair public trail before a jury of your peers and a lawyer if you cannot afford to hire your own. This is guaranteed by the US constitution. The US is not the USSR or Nazi Germany.

That's true, but you can be imprisoned up to the trial. It can take years before the trial occurs, and the trial and appeals themselves can take years. You can be put in solitary confinement (and that's likely here to prevent him from spreading classified information). The trial can occur in complete secrecy.

So while true, you can still be disappeared for years, and then convicted with all court proceedings kept secret.

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want to avoid that outcome. Especially if their goal is to get things discussed, disappearing into prison is not a useful result.

What Snowden did is certainly illegal, but given his starting premises, his actions make perfect sense. Indeed I think they are almost inevitable for anyone who discovers government misconduct. The outcome of previous leaks has really shown there are few other options.

How can a "public" trial as dictated by the US constitution occur in secrecy? Which part of a "speedy trial" as dictated by the US constitution allows for an individual to be jailed for years prior to the trial? I don't think you understand how due process works.

Are you asking whether these things are possible, or asking whether they should be constitutional? In the first case, I think you must not read the news very often, but:

With regard to secret trials, the very first thing I found in Google is this fairly comprehensive guide to how and why proceedings would be sealed, from the Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/looku ... _Guide.pdf (pdf document) National security is listed as a possible reason on page 6.

As for the right to a speedy trial, it's a pretty vague right. There is this Supreme Court precedent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo in which the case in question was delayed by 5 years, and the outcome was still upheld by the Supreme Court.

The document you linked states numerous times "public right to access," this is not describing secret trials.

As for the Wiki page you linked, it states that prosecution kept seeking continuances and the defendant agreed 11 times. If you agree to it then you have waived your right. Furthermore if it is a "continuance," then technically the trial has already started and defendant agreed to let it continue in 11 separate instances thus allowing it to stretch on for 5 years.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

US Citizen's are given due process of law in the United States of America. Even if you assassinate the President of the US you are still given a fair public trail before a jury of your peers and a lawyer if you cannot afford to hire your own. This is guaranteed by the US constitution. The US is not the USSR or Nazi Germany.

That's true, but you can be imprisoned up to the trial. It can take years before the trial occurs, and the trial and appeals themselves can take years. You can be put in solitary confinement (and that's likely here to prevent him from spreading classified information). The trial can occur in complete secrecy.

So while true, you can still be disappeared for years, and then convicted with all court proceedings kept secret.

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want to avoid that outcome. Especially if their goal is to get things discussed, disappearing into prison is not a useful result.

What Snowden did is certainly illegal, but given his starting premises, his actions make perfect sense. Indeed I think they are almost inevitable for anyone who discovers government misconduct. The outcome of previous leaks has really shown there are few other options.

How can a "public" trial as dictated by the US constitution occur in secrecy? Which part of a "speedy trial" as dictated by the US constitution allows for an individual to be jailed for years prior to the trial? I don't think you understand how due process works.

The way it works is the attorney for one side or the other tells the judge that material vital to the National Security will be discussed and for this reason the proceedings need to be closed. The judge reviews (in chambers) the evidence supporting the claim. On finding the request to be valid, the judge orders all reporters and other parties not required for the trial to be excluded from the courtroom. Depending on the sensitivity of the material presented, those present in court may additionally be prevented from viewing exhibits presented to the judge. If the side requesting secrecy makes a strong enough case, then all records of the trial process, including admission it ever happened can be classified. It is easier with a UCMJ proceeding, but it also happens in civil trials. The charges are classified, the proceedings are classified, the list of persons present for the trial is classified, the evidence presented is classified, the outcome is classified, the disposal of the accused is classified. In short, the trial "never happened" in the Interest of National Security.

That is how "Due Process and Public Trial" are routinely suspended.

Speedy trial is routinely suspended by either and often both sides requesting a delay to better prepare for trial or to await the outcome of another proceeding elsewhere that will have a critical effect on the (now delayed) trial. This can leave the defendant in jail for years while the lawyers prepare their cases.

Way to miss the point. I never said anything about playing chicken with a tank. I said that when you live in a country with due process of the law then you should fight in court not flee the country. If you are in a country where immediate execution is the process then you fight however you must. America has due process of the law, we do not execute people without a trial. Edward Snowden had no right to flee the country, he only dug a deeper hole when he did that and now anything can happen to him. He is no longer within the protections of US law.

When you live in the country with secret courts and prisons you maybe consider other options.

I first thought that he is accused in espionage because he left country but it appears that this has become a common practice in the US to neutralize the political dissidents.

I come from Soviet Union and before Gorbachev only an idiot expected a fair due process when you exposed something its secret agencies did and escaping the country was an only option to reveal anything.

In the light of current information I see that US has slide a long way to become here.

US Citizen's are given due process of law in the United States of America. Even if you assassinate the President of the US you are still given a fair public trail before a jury of your peers and a lawyer if you cannot afford to hire your own. This is guaranteed by the US constitution. The US is not the USSR or Nazi Germany.

It's really fucking sad when the majority of a nation is cheering for an accused traitor on the run from their own government.

Says a lot about the government if someone they call traitor is supported by a majority of the people. Usually you only find that occuring in dictatorships.

Snowden is a traitor and should be hunted and prosecuted as one. He should not be glorified like so many in the online communities want to do.

This @$$hole didn't just disclose information on just one court sanctioned classified government program he had an issue with, he gathered up as much classified info on whatever he could get his hands on and then released it indiscriminately to the media, and in-turn, to those who would like nothing better than to do us harm.

If he had released information on just one program that he had issue with, then I would afford him the title of leaker/whistleblower, but his actions have been nothing like that of a whistleblower. And for that, he should not be afforded any whistleblower protections. For all we know, while in China, he could have been handing off classified info meant just for them, and now while in Moscow, he could be doing the same there.

For as many armchair quarterbacks we have here, and on other online communities, the reality is that there are people and groups, both foreign and domestic, who want to cause harm to our country. Snowden has done nothing but to make their jobs easier.